I work in a Legal Philosophy Institute. It was established in 1974. Here w have 4 Institutes no one in law even we work in a Law School. At the time there were 6 members. 5 prima donnas and the jealous wife on one of them. So there was a Director and 5 section chiefs, So there were to Muchos caciques y ningun indio,( how that expression survives the tough police?). Currently of the non retired members only two out of 14 members dont boast of a title., there are now subsections with their chiefs.
So the reason could be only ego massaging

Avi, at first glance, I agree with Jensen — the idea of taking one of those firms public, when their privateness, and consequent protection from public (and regulatory) scrutiny, is a main part of their competitive advantage — makes little sense. OTOH, diversified LBO associations are very much like conglomerate, even when they remain private, as noted in a well-known (though strangely unpublished) paper by Baker and Montgomery (http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/10-024.pdf). One difference between LBO associations and publicly traded conglomerates is that the former are unable to shift cash flows among portfolio companies (due to legal restrictions associated with raising funds). Perhaps raising some funds through public equity markets allows firms like KKR to combine some of the best features of private equity with some of the internal-capital-market advantages of diversified public companies — a new kind of hybrid organization, in other words. But I’m just speculating.